PANDA's Dan Johnson breaks down the most dangerous law in America in Santa Cruz, CA at the Freedom Forum March 19, 2014

The PANDA (People Against the NDAA Mission Statement:

Our Mission is to nonviolently defeat, strike down, repeal, stop, void and fight the indefinite detention provisions, Sections 1021 and 1022, of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year of 2012, to fight for American civil liberties, to combat laws restricting liberty in the interest of National Security, to support current government officials that are doing so and to engage a younger generation in the politics of the United States so this cannot happen again.

Did you know that Barack Obama has been secretly negotiating the most important trade agreement since the formation of the World Trade Organization? Did you know that this agreement will impose very strict Internet copyright rules, ban all “Buy American” laws, give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and force even more domestic manufacturing offshore? If you have not heard about this treaty, don’t feel bad. Obama has refused to even give Congress a copy of the draft agreement and he has banned members of Congress from attending the negotiations. The plan is to keep this treaty secret until the very last minute and then to railroad it through Congress and have it signed into law by October. The treaty is known as “the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, and the nations that are reported to be involved in the development of this treaty include the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia. Opponents of this treaty refer to it as “the NAFTA of the Pacific”, and if it is enacted it will push the deindustrialization of America into overdrive.

The “one world” economic agenda that Barack Obama has been pushing is absolutely killing the U.S. economy. As you will see later in this article, we are losing jobs and businesses at an astounding pace. And each new “free trade” agreement makes things even worse.

For example, just check out the impact that the recent free trade agreement that Obama negotiated with South Korea is having on us…

A 10 percent decline of U.S. exports to Korea

The U.S. trade deficit with Korea has climbed 37 percent

U.S. auto industry has been crippled

Loss of U.S. control where international trade, banking and finance is concerned

A projected 159,000 jobs will be lost

Wait a second – I though that “free trade” agreements were actually supposed to increase exports.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) on Friday became the 27th senator to sign on to a letter opposing passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty, leaving opponents just seven votes shy of the 34 votes opponents need to doom passage of the UN maritime convention.

“We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty,” reads the letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

U.S. accession to the 30-year-old treaty is championed by the U.S. Navy and oil and gas industries, who say it's in the United States' interest to be able to craft international maritime law. Critics say it could force the U.S. to abide by international restrictions on carbon emissions and force American companies to pay royalties to a United Nations body.

The giveaway of 8 American Alaskan islands and vast resource-rich seabeds to the Russians is underway by the U.S. State Department in the guise of an agreement on a maritime boundary between Alaska and Siberia.

In the mid-1970s countries adopted the concept of exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and fishery conservation zones extending 200 nautical miles from their coastlines. If two countries are within 400 miles of each other, they need to negotiate a division of the seabeds by a "maritime boundary". It is usually some variation of an equidistant line between the two coastlines. For the U.S. this has been necessary vis-a-vis Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Russia, among others.

The seabeds between Alaska and Siberia are enormous: hundreds of thousands of square miles. The distance between the two countries at the Bering Strait is less than three miles between Little Diomede Island (U.S./Alaska) and Big Diomede Island (Russia).

The State Department with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at the end of the Ford Administration unilaterally proposed to the Soviets in January 1977 an unfortunately concessionary maritime boundary line. It was based on part of a line described in the 1867 treaty between the U.S. and Russia. [See 1867 Treaty.] Generally this part of the line starts midway between Attu Island and Copper Island in the Aleutian Island, proceeds northeast for about 1000 miles to a midpoint between Little Diomede Island and Big Diomede Island, and then turns due north into the Arctic Ocean.

The problem is that this line places on the Russian side 8 American Alaskan islands along with their 200-mile seabeds. It amounts to a giveaway of not only the land territory, but also hundreds of thousands of square miles of seabeds to the Russians. (See shaded area of map below.) There is no quid pro quo for the American public or for the State of Alaska. These seabeds are rich in oil, gas, fisheries, and other resources worth billions of dollars. The oil and gas potential is measured in the billions of barrels. The fisheries are in the hundreds of millions of pounds per year, reflecting that Alaska is the number one fishing state in the nation. The strategic military significance can been seen in their location in any flight path of missiles from the Asian mainland toward North America, and in their advantageous positions for strategic defense initiative (SDI) installations.

"Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful"

This is the latest from the West Coast libertarians on how an expansive judicial interpretation of the Commerce Clause has become a blank check to Congress (skeptics take note: Erwin Chemerinsky, the UC-Irvine Law School dean featured here is not a liberal straw man dug up for the purposes of this video. He’s a highly regarded intellectual on the legal left — which ought to make his closing comments even more disturbing).

It has been months now since the new healthcare reform bill was passed into law. As is so typical, this massive piece of legislation was passed with a sense of urgency so acute that leadership declared America could not afford to wait until legislators, their staff and the general public had time to thoroughly read the bill.

The truth comes out eventually, however. Much like the recently discovered exemption from Freedom of Information Act requirements for the SEC that was slipped into the equally massive and "urgent" financial reform bill, we are finally seeing what other insidiousness has been hiding in the fine print of the healthcare reform bill. It seems that all provisions in this poorly written and poorly conceived monstrosity need to be repealed as soon as possible.

This has become business as usual in our Congress. Monstrously large bills that have vast economic impact are kept from being read and members being force to cast votes. I don't know about you, but if I were a member of Congress, I WOULD NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BE FORCED TO VOTE ON A BILL THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN READ!! Pelosi and Reid should be brought up on charges of some kind for doing this sort of thing.

Amazingly, neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev) nor Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif) want to give Congress or the public much time to read the upcoming Healthcare bills they are rushing through their respective chambers before forcing a “yes” or “no” vote on them.

In a recent interview, Senator Reid was asked if he’d commit to giving the Senate and the public a week to digest any healthcare “reform” bill before he brought the bill up for a vote. Reid however, refused to make such a commitment.

Reid allowed less than two days before forcing a Senate vote on the stimulus bill and many expect him to do the same with any healthcare legislation. He was unapologetic over refusing to allow his fellows or the public to digest the legislation before the vote.

Senate Bill 787 will change federal jurisdiction over "navigable" water, to give the federal government control over all water everwhere, in municiple reservoirs, and on private lands, and in private wells. This bill ignores state water law authority and the Fifth Amendment.of the U.S. Constitution.